| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ef56c1b3-5ff9-48de-bfbf-88c99b44695a@amd.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:48:13 +0530 From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com> To: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, rui.zhang@...el.com Cc: eranian@...gle.com, gautham.shenoy@....com, ravi.bangoria@....com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs Hello Oleksandr, On 9/14/2024 2:48 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > Hello. > > On pátek 13. září 2024 17:21:40, SELČ Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote: >> Currently the energy-cores event in the power PMU aggregates energy >> consumption data at a package level. On the other hand the core energy >> RAPL counter in AMD CPUs has a core scope (which means the energy >> consumption is recorded separately for each core). Earlier efforts to add >> the core event in the power PMU had failed [1], due to the difference in >> the scope of these two events. Hence, there is a need for a new core scope >> PMU. >> >> This patchset adds a new "power_per_core" PMU alongside the existing >> "power" PMU, which will be responsible for collecting the new >> "energy-per-core" event. >> >> Tested the package level and core level PMU counters with workloads >> pinned to different CPUs. >> >> Results with workload pinned to CPU 1 in Core 1 on an AMD Zen4 Genoa >> machine: >> >> $ perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 1 >> >> Performance counter stats for 'system wide': >> >> S0-D0-C0 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C1 1 5.72 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C2 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C3 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C4 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C5 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C6 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C7 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C8 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C9 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> S0-D0-C10 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ >> >> v4 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711102436.4432-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com/ >> >> v5 changes: >> * Rebase on top of Kan Liang's "PMU scope" patchset [2] >> * rapl_cntr_mask moved to rapl_pmus struct in patch 8 >> * Patch 1 from v4 is merged separately, so removed from this series >> * Add an extra argument "scope" in patch 5 to the init functions >> * Add an new patch 2, which removes the cpu_to_rapl_pmu() function >> >> Base: tip/perf/core(currently has just 1-5 patches from [2]) + patch 6 from [2] + >> diff [3] + patch 7 from [2] + revert [4] + apply [5] >> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3e766f0e-37d4-0f82-3868-31b14228868d@linux.intel.com/ >> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240802151643.1691631-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com/ >> [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8c09633c-5bf2-48a2-91a6-a0af9b9f2e8c@linux.intel.com/ >> [4]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=perf/core&id=8d72eba1cf8cecd76a2b4c1dd7673c2dc775f514 >> [5]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240910085504.204814-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com/ >> >> Dhananjay Ugwekar (8): >> perf/x86/rapl: Remove the cpu_to_rapl_pmu() function >> perf/x86/rapl: Rename rapl_pmu variables >> perf/x86/rapl: Make rapl_model struct global >> perf/x86/rapl: Add arguments to the cleanup and init functions >> perf/x86/rapl: Modify the generic variable names to *_pkg* >> perf/x86/rapl: Remove the global variable rapl_msrs >> perf/x86/rapl: Move the cntr_mask to rapl_pmus struct >> perf/x86/rapl: Add per-core energy counter support for AMD CPUs >> >> K Prateek Nayak (1): >> x86/topology: Introduce topology_logical_core_id() >> >> Documentation/arch/x86/topology.rst | 4 + >> arch/x86/events/rapl.c | 406 ++++++++++++++++---------- >> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 1 + >> arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h | 1 + >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/debugfs.c | 1 + >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/topology_common.c | 1 + >> 6 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-) > > With v6.11-rc7 + all the mentioned preparatory patches and this series: > > $ taskset -c 9 dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null & > > $ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ sleep 5 > > Performance counter stats for 'system wide': > > S0-D0-C0 1 3,79 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C1 1 5,65 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C2 1 1,26 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C3 1 3,18 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C4 1 2,06 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C5 1 3,51 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C6 1 0,77 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C7 1 0,55 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C8 1 1,65 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C9 1 47,85 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C10 1 2,49 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C11 1 11,85 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C12 1 1,75 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C13 1 0,74 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C14 1 2,58 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > S0-D0-C15 1 4,67 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ > > 5,003391425 seconds time elapsed > > on the following CPU: > > AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor > > If this behaves as expected, please add: > > Tested-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name> Energy reported by core 9 is considerably higher than other cores, which is as expected. However, can you please post the core_id for CPU 9 just to be sure, also I see that other cores are also showing considerable energy consumption(e.g. core 11), are there some other tasks running in the background? Thanks for testing! Regards, Dhananjay > > Thank you. >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists